Alextemplet wrote: The distinguishing feature of the natural sciences, in my opinion, is the scientific method. Many academic disciplines such as humanities and social sciences do not use this method of experimentation, often for very good reasons. Thus they can be considered "outside the boundaries of science."

Or there are many different approaches or strategies applied to learning which are used in these non-science disciplines.

If that's the case, it's enough to say that Biblical concepts must not be taken with lots of technicalities or at least no need to undertake any experiments anymore just to know if it's real although many are still consistent in finding pieces of evidence to prove or disprove the Bible and all its contents. In fact, all the things written in the Bible shows us the mind and nature of God. Humans created science and its systematic way. God's ways are not the human ways and so both are exactly different. That's how I think of it.

---Just one act of random kindness at a time and you can change the world---

Of course this man had a VERY limited understanding of evolution. But religious doctrines aside-- during evolution of the species it does seem to me logical that some very real mechanical processes happened during speciation.

Perhaps the pastor's illustration is oversimplified, and my understanding of evolution is incomplete, but wouldn't there have had to be some scenario like fins becoming legs, while at the same time lungs are developing, and during that same time period fish beginning to come out on land, only to die because their respiratory system is messed up and they can't use their appendages very well?

The only other scenario I suppose would be that a fish bore an amphibian.

FYI, lungs evolved before legs as an off-shoot from the intestine; in fact Corydoras catfish today can "breathe" through their intestinal lining as an adaptation to life in poorly-oxygenated water. Lungs were probably very common in early fish, and many acquatic fish today (such as gar) still have lungs while in other fish the lungs evolved into the swim bladder. As for limbs, the bone structure of lobe-finned fish is almost identical to that of terrestrial vertebrates, and thus a clear evolutionary ancestor. Add to this the existence of "missing links" in the fossil record (such as Tiktaalik and Ichthyostega), and we have a clear example of all necessary adaptations being in existence even before tetrapods began to evolve.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

alextemplet wrote:Charles, to say that something is "true" is to say that is factual, real, etc. To say that something lies outside the bounds of science simply means it involves a field of human knowledge that is not covered by the natural sciences. This would include most of the humanities, for example. To say that science holds all the answers is among the most foolish statements a person can make, and any responsible scientist should respect that there are limits to natural philosophy.

Science does not "hold the answers." Every science theory is an improvement over one that scientists had previously. So, how can you say that science deals with what is "true"? It deals with theory, with the most accurate theory we have for understanding ourselves and our universe.

I am an admirer of the visual and performing arts including literature. Every one of the other humanities listed above in Wikapedia is both a source of data that I use in my work, and every one of them is subject to a scientific approach and assessment. We cannot predict the future of our civilization without studying its past, including the "classics."

One of the main problems in modern times, I believe, is that the "liberal education" most students take in college is so filled with the multitude of theories that the student is hard pressed to keep up much less think them through themselves well enough to make a judgement. Thus, they go through life with no deep convictions about anything. That makes them easily swayed by the talk of others and prevents anyone from taking a stand on principle.

Charles, not one of the fields in your list falls under the definition of "science." Would you care to explain how a dance instructor would use such scientific techniques as hypothesis and experimentation?

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

Adding my opinion(because apparently evidence means nothing to the believers) on original statement.

I believe that religion was created as a means explaining the 'unexplainable'. As our modern science explains these once unexplainable things the meaning and use of religion changes, it has changed from rock solid laws and historic accounts to symbolic meanings and ideologies with which to guide our lives. I think that early humans and even most modern humans find it hard to get their head around the fact that physical things/energy have always existed, we find it easier to imagine that a magical/non physical entity has always existed.

I have no problem with most religions, in fact most religions have very good morals, i only have problems with those religions which seek to 'enlighten' other religions as to the fact that theirs is the 'real' one. I will go no further other than saying that the bible(which was predominantly written by hallucinating people) should not be taken as scientific evidence as to the history of living creatures.(or viruses for that matter....)

A wise man once said to me:"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

FYI, lungs evolved before legs as an off-shoot from the intestine; in fact Corydoras catfish today can "breathe" through their intestinal lining as an adaptation to life in poorly-oxygenated water. Lungs were probably very common in early fish, and many acquatic fish today (such as gar) still have lungs while in other fish the lungs evolved into the swim bladder. As for limbs, the bone structure of lobe-finned fish is almost identical to that of terrestrial vertebrates, and thus a clear evolutionary ancestor. Add to this the existence of "missing links" in the fossil record (such as Tiktaalik and Ichthyostega), and we have a clear example of all necessary adaptations being in existence even before tetrapods began to evolve.

Alex,

Hi, first, thank you for the link. Let me secondly say, I desire discourse and friendly debate. I do see intelligent design in things, but I do not disrespect evolutionary thinking. I can see why scientist could interpret things evolutionarily--resemblance, similarities in flora/fauna/genetic material etc., natural selection, speciation, mutation. These things are seen in a limited degree currently.

Okay, I read the link, and also researched more on lungfish. One thing I see is that lung fish stay in places where the water is still and hence a chance of low O2 content. I think we need to right off the bat say that evolution does not say that habitat causes adaptation (I'm not saying you say that either), but mutation first (independent of habitat), then speciation, and natural selection within habitats.

The hard part for me is what caused lungfish to mutate, evolve lungs, and at the same time mutate an instinct (information) to stay in potentially stagnate or low O2 areas? Somewhere in the genetics the instinct of habitat developed also through mutation FIRST--THEN speciation and natural selection. Why did it just so happen that these things developed in the GENETIC MATERIAL AT THE SAME RELATIVE PERIOD OF TIME? This is a MONUMENTAL COINCIDENCE, as many things are in the theory of evolution. Always there is the question of guiding force and mechanism in the genetics which caused so-called adaptation. What caused so many coincidences?

Again 1)Natural selection happens after mutation. 2)Habitat does not cause genetic mutation.

Therefore the development of lungs originated from mutation along with a mutation which caused an instinct (information) to stay in the lungfish habitat.

Intelligent design interprets this as evidence of design. The creation of lungs was necessary for their habitat.

A) Because it is harder for us to believe that so many coincidental upward mutations happened within the same relative periods of time.

B)Because of the complexity and the homeostasis of the organism 1)together with it's instinct (information) for habitat 2)together with how the organism works within the habitat3)together with how it works in relation with other organisms within that habitat

This makes more than an organism but a finely tuned and well balanced ecological system. This points to designed purpose.

AFJ, the problem with your reasoning is that we already know how lungs evolved as an off-shoot of the intestine. As I mentioned before, many fish (Corydoras catfish, for example) can swallow air from the water's surface and absorb oxygen through their intestinal lining. Lungs evolved as a chamber of the intestine that gradually split off into its own organ.

In essence, your thinking is dependent on the organ already existing before it can be selected for; yet this is not the case. Many structures are the result of an organ or system being gradually adapted for something completely different from its original purpose. Tetrapod limbs, evolved from the paired fins of lobe-finned fish, is one such example.

The biggest problem I have with ID theory is that it seems to paint a picture of a creator who's indecisive and flat-out incompetent. For example, many structures such as the human eye are very poorly designed. Speaking in evolutionary terms, this can be expected and explained easily when the organ's evolutionary ancestors (in this case, the lancelet eye) are considered, yet one has to consider why a designer would intentionally create such a flawed design. Also consider the sequence in which organisms appear in the fossil record. Each one appears only for a brief period of time (perhaps a few million years) only to be replaced by another very similar species, which lasts again for only a short time before being replaced by yet another similar species. This is what would be expected if evolution were occurring, but an ID theorist has some problems with this. Consider elephants, for example. In the last twenty million years or so, we've seen a few dozen species of elephant come and go, and today only two remain. It's as if the designer decided he didn't like the first one so killed it off, then created a different but similar species, but didn't like that one either, until he finally made up his mind and stopped creating species just as soon as humans arrive on the scene. Sounds awfully hard to believe, in my opinion.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.